RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again

RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:51:38 PM)
watching sonograms for four out of seven pregnancies formed my opinion that NO ONE has the right to tell me what I can and what I cannot do with my body.

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:53:23 PM)
I understand your point about viability. The problem is that the crazy religious extremists are using your conditional acceptance to expand the conditions. The best way to counter that is to unconditionally support a woman's right to get an abortion. It's the only way to ensure that safe access continues to exist. The alternative is for me to start posting DIY At-Home D&C instructions, so that any time 2 girls or women get together for an hour or two, they can take care of each other if necessary. Sure more people will probably die because they're not going to follow the antibiotic instructions if we have to do that, but the point is that you can never stop access. It must be available, from professionals, to everyone.

Marc2b -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:56:29 PM)
quote: when their funding is cut , threatened to be cut for outright lies. you are damn straight they have every RIGHT to be pissed and fight it. I believe what they do is vitally more important than being allowed to be cut because it offends some religious views. Why are my views any less important or right than yours??? oops guess what, they arent... It is not a question of whose views are more or less important than anyone else's. It is a question of the legitamate role of government. Far too often (imho) too many people just reflexively yell "FUND IT, FUND IT" when they hear of some problem, giving no thought to where that funding will come from or the legal precedents it will set or overturn. Rather than just get up on my moral high horse and start making nonsensical proclamations about street lights, I prefer to question things (even if some people's sacred cows get skewered).

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 12:58:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan I suppose you didn't read the article. 2008 Why bother insisting on me providing you something if you're going to ignore it in the first place? The article says a symbolc wording was included in a law. It says nothing about it being legally challenged which it hasn't been since the way it was done does not actually change the legal definition of human life (if it had abortion would be murder in MI and SD and that would have been challenged). At what point do we become human? Missouri lawmakers have declared their answer. By withholding both his signature and his veto, Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon signaled that he agreed and recently allowed the legislative answer to become state law. "The life of each human being begins at conception," according to Senate Bill 793, which adds new regulations to the state's 24-hour informed consent law for abortions. "Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being." The bill makes Missouri the second state to adopt such language after a similar provision became law in South Dakota in 2005, and then survived a legal challenge in federal court in 2008. What I said and what you quoted me on was: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception. What they did not do, was say abortion was illegal. What they did say was, life begins at conception. What I also said was "So there are probably pending battles to come in that regard too. " Now tell me what you don't understand, and where I'm incorrect because the laws were enacted. SD's survived a federal court challenge.

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:00:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: when their funding is cut , threatened to be cut for outright lies. you are damn straight they have every RIGHT to be pissed and fight it. I believe what they do is vitally more important than being allowed to be cut because it offends some religious views. Why are my views any less important or right than yours??? oops guess what, they arent... It is not a question of whose views are more or less important than anyone else's. It is a question of the legitamate role of government. Far too often (imho) too many people just reflexively yell "FUND IT, FUND IT" when they hear of some problem, giving no thought to where that funding will come from or the legal precedents it will set or overturn. Rather than just get up on my moral high horse and start making nonsensical proclamations about street lights, I prefer to question things (even if some people's sacred cows get skewered). Making sure sick people see a doctor is a legitimate role of the government. That argument was had, and the outcome was Title X legislation making it the Law of the Land. Now, you're saying you don't think it's right for sick people to see a doctor. Ok, that's an opinion. Doesn't sound like a very charitable opinion, and if you believe in a forgiving god, like say, Jesus, then there's an element of hypocrisy in that opinion...

Marc2b -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:01:57 PM)
quote: They receive tax payer money because of Title X and because they are a service provider under Medicaid. See the reason now? But should they? I support legal abortion but, unless I'm the one who knocked her up, I'm not particularly keen on paying for them.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:03:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan I understand the exceptions, and have no issue with them. What I have issue with is the stance that post-viability, one should have the option to arbitrarily terminate a life. Viability is currently defined around 23 weeks - sue me if I'm off a week or two in either direction, but it is near there if not there. That's where my support for the "it's my body" crowd ends. It's where I understand there may be complications that require an abortion later. Are you unaware of the limitation SCOTUS placed on abortions in roe v Wade?

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:06:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan I suppose you didn't read the article. 2008 Why bother insisting on me providing you something if you're going to ignore it in the first place? The article says a symbolc wording was included in a law. It says nothing about it being legally challenged which it hasn't been since the way it was done does not actually change the legal definition of human life (if it had abortion would be murder in MI and SD and that would have been challenged). At what point do we become human? Missouri lawmakers have declared their answer. By withholding both his signature and his veto, Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon signaled that he agreed and recently allowed the legislative answer to become state law. "The life of each human being begins at conception," according to Senate Bill 793, which adds new regulations to the state's 24-hour informed consent law for abortions. "Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being." The bill makes Missouri the second state to adopt such language after a similar provision became law in South Dakota in 2005, and then survived a legal challenge in federal court in 2008. What I said and what you quoted me on was: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception. What they did not do, was say abortion was illegal. What they did say was, life begins at conception. What I also said was "So there are probably pending battles to come in that regard too. " Now tell me what you don't understand, and where I'm incorrect because the laws were enacted. SD's survived a federal court challenge. If you intentionally end a human life, as defined by law, it is murder or manslaughter. What the states in question did was not change their legal definitions of human life but to put a symbolic phrase in the introduction to a law.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:08:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: They receive tax payer money because of Title X and because they are a service provider under Medicaid. See the reason now? But should they? I support legal abortion but, unless I'm the one who knocked her up, I'm not particularly keen on paying for them. Tax money is never used for abortions. PP does a whole range of other things besides provide abortions.

Marc2b -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:16:24 PM)
quote: Tax money is never used for abortions. PP does a whole range of other things besides provide abortions. That's a load. The money that pays for X frees up other money to pay for Y. If you give me twenty dollars and tell me I can put gas in my car with it but not buy cigs, you've just freed up twenty dollars in my wallet that was going to go for gas but can now be used for cigs.

StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:26:14 PM)
http://www.aclu.org/2008/06/30/the-8th-circuit-court-okays-south-dakota%E2%80%99s-political-interference-in-women%E2%80%99s-personal-medical-decision-making It's not just symbolic Ken. Damn, it is a pain making sure I find liberal sources so you folks will read them. But I consider the source, in both cases.

tazzygirl -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:28:30 PM)
The money you are referring too does not go to pay for abortions. Abortions are only 3% of the services PP provides. If that was the only funding they were losing, I could see your point. Its not. Your argument doesnt match the facts.

DomKen -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:32:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan http://www.aclu.org/2008/06/30/the-8th-circuit-court-okays-south-dakota%E2%80%99s-political-interference-in-women%E2%80%99s-personal-medical-decision-making It's not just symbolic Ken. Damn, it is a pain making sure I find liberal sources so you folks will read them. But I consider the source, in both cases. Did you read the actual ruling? http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/06/053093P.pdf It's all about the doctors who perform abortions having to read a statement to the preganant woman. There is nothing in there about changing the legal definition of a human life. The case was all about whether it violated the Doctor's free speech rights to make them read a statement mandated by the state.

tazzygirl -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:36:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception. This is incorrect Missouri and South Dakota. Mississippi is probably next. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/mo-lawmakers-answer-the-q_n_716984.html Its not about when life begins... its about viability.

tazzygirl -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:40:40 PM)
quote: I choose freedom every time too. The issue is when a baby or fetus if you want to call it that, deserves freedom as well. The only rational point I can cling to in the entire debate is when it can live outside the womb. At that point, you're not choosing to end the existence of a group of cells, but what is a life whether you're present or not. Then what is your issue with PP, based upon the post you made?

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: They receive tax payer money because of Title X and because they are a service provider under Medicaid. See the reason now? But should they? I support legal abortion but, unless I'm the one who knocked her up, I'm not particularly keen on paying for them. Repeat after me. TITLE X FUNDS HAVE NEVER BEEN USED TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS. It works just like your local hospital does it. Title X funds are held in a separate account, and not used to pay for any abortion services... If you don't have a problem with your non-profit hospital doing it, what's your issue with non-profit planned parenthood doing it? The only difference is poor people make up 65-70% of Planned Parenthood's customers.

Marc2b -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:41:23 PM)
quote: The money you are referring too does not go to pay for abortions. Not directly, no... but indirectly it does. Abortions are only 3% of the services PP provides. If that was the only funding they were losing, I could see your point. Its not. Your argument doesnt match the facts. What is my point?

Marc2b -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:42:39 PM)
quote: Its not about when life begins... its about viability. Oh god, that is really callous... please tell me that you don't actually judge a person's worth by their viability.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:43:12 PM)
Taz, here's a question. When (not if) they perfect a mechanical womb what will be the new limit of viability? Blastocyst? 4-cell stage? How do you think that will affect the law?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (8/31/2011 1:44:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Its not about when life begins... its about viability. Oh god, that is really callous... please tell me that you don't actually judge a person's worth by their viability. Viability is a technical term Marc. It means when the fetus can survive outside the womb.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875